We're trying to do different things then I think: you aim to rise above the zealous and derive superior (rational in this case) moral value from scriptures, and I aim to descend into the intellectual realm of the harmfully zealous to confront them on their own terms. — VagabondSpectre
Religion can also unintentionally imbue shitty moral standards into their mysticism which then poses a challenge to rational moral agents who would have people learn to wipe. — VagabondSpectre
I find many Christian tenets to be morally repulsive, disgusting, and even worthy of hate, but I've already become somewhat dispassionate in regards to how I feel about it. — VagabondSpectre
You're trying to strain historicity from this, but why? Why not consult historical research? That said, historical/theistic genealogy isn't the take-away which concerns me, which should be clear at this point — VagabondSpectre
Morally, metaphorically, literally, abstractly, historically, not at all: all are options for interpretation. My main target is the mainstream moral one, but if I can tag the other bases while I'm at it (even if only to reinforce my moral criticism), I'll do it. — VagabondSpectre
I totally disagree. The more reliably you treat people as they want to be treated the more reliably they reciprocate. Such reliability is actually one of the virtues which causes us to place intrinsic value in the lives of those who display it. Surrounding one's self with reliable and moral people is both greedy and rational. There is indeed reciprocation. Yes some places have immoral customs, but reciprocation exists even in such places within whatever arbitrary bounds their customs mandate (usually customs which are religiously inspired and perpetuated I might note...). — VagabondSpectre
When I read the bible (around age 15) I couldn't understand why god wasn't pleased by Cain's sacrifice of fruits and vegetables but was very pleased with Abel's offering of dead animals; did Cain not work equally hard for his bounty? The answer can only be that to sacrifice a living thing is inherently a greater sacrifice (therefore worthy of more appreciation). — VagabondSpectre
Human sacrifice is therefore a greater sacrifice if we value human life more than animal life. The life of Jesus himself then becomes the greatest sacrifice of all. Christians spend a lot of time reflecting on the sacrifice that Jesus made so that we could be forgiven and it causes us to feel thankful to him for doing so, but they spend very little time asking themselves why they need god to forgive them in the first place, or why god needs a sacrifice in order to do actual forgiving. — VagabondSpectre
Love is nothing else but pleasure accompanied by the idea of an external cause: Hate is nothing else but pain accompanied by the idea of an external cause. We further see, that he who loves necessarily endeavors to have, and to keep present to him, the object of his love; while he who hates endeavors to remove and destroy the object of his hatred. — John
The intellectual love of God (amor dei intellectualis) is the highest blessedness to which humans can aspire. This deeply satisfying love arises from an immediate and intuitive knowledge of God—whom Spinoza identifies with Nature—and of oneself as a part and product of God/Nature. Spinoza’s conception of the intellectual love of God resonates with the long tradition of philosophical thinkers in the West, going back at least to Plato and the Neoplatonists, who celebrate the emotional satisfaction to be derived from reflective contemplation of what is ontologically ultimate—sometimes called “the God of the philosophers.
Spinoza is not entirely a modern thinker and that his God in fact has antecedents in the Middle Ages. It is too easy to get carried away with the evident conformity of Spinoza's system to the requirements of science and overlook the foot that it still has planted firmly in Mediaeval Jewish mysticism. Mediaeval Jewish philosophy, in fact, was closely allied to the Neoplatonic philosophical tradition of Late Antiquity, as this had been taken up and developed during the intellectual flowering of Islâm in the 9th century.
.....Thought and extension are just two, out of an infinite number of, facets of Being. A reductionistic scientism that wants to claim Spinoza as one of its own typically overlooks this aspect of the theory: Spinoza's God thinks, and also is or does many other things that are beyond our reckoning and comprehension. Thus, although Spinoza was condemned by his community for the heresy of saying that God has a body (denying the transcendence of God common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islâm), God is nevertheless much more, indeed infinitely more, than a body.
Although, that said, I would be wary of interpreting 'nature' in a modern way, I think for Spinoza, it is more like 'the totality': — "Wayfarer
Spinoza is, metaphysically, a materialist — TheWillowOfDarkness
referring to God which cannot be reduced, categorised or explained by other terms, but he's really the antithesis of a mystic. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The purpose of mystical rapture [which is what Spinoza's "intellectual love of God" means] is often not just to see God or know God directly, but to become one with God through complete loss of self. This is what we often see in Islâmic mysticism, Sûfism, but also in India, where the self can ultimately be identical (advaita, "non-dual") with Brahman. In Spinoza, indeed, there is no independent substantial self. The Qur'ân says that God is as close to us as the jugular vein, but Spinoza goes rather further than this. Everything that we are is just a modification of an attribute of God, just a small and transient part of the existence of God. We are absolutely nothing apart from God. This gives a considerably stronger impression that we might think from the notion of the "intellectual love of God" that Spinoza is often said to recommend. To really feel an absolute absorption into God and abolition of self (fanâ', "extinction" in Arabic) would be a mystical rapture indeed. This may be the key to the emotional pull of Spinoza's theory for him: It would be a consolation of religion indeed for him to lose all sense that his life, circumstances, and misfortunes are of more than the most trivial consequence. Sub specie aeternitatis, from the viewpoint of eternity, nothing imperfect ever happens, and we can imagine Spinoza transported right out of his own rather sad and solitary existence into the comforting companionship of God.
I think I understand, but I would be mindful of the use of 'love' in such a context. I wonder what the original was? I think his original works were Latin, right? So, I wonder if the word was 'amor'? In any case, it is a discussion of pleasurable and unpleasurable feelings or emotions in their connection or relationship with 'objects of sense'. And I don't know if that really corresponds with the idea of agápē as being a kind of unconditional love. It is more like what philosophers would call 'the passions'. Whereas the overall aim of Spinoza's philosophy was
The intellectual love of God (amor dei intellectualis) is the highest blessedness to which humans can aspire. This deeply satisfying love arises from an immediate and intuitive knowledge of God—whom Spinoza identifies with Nature—and of oneself as a part and product of God/Nature. Spinoza’s conception of the intellectual love of God resonates with the long tradition of philosophical thinkers in the West, going back at least to Plato and the Neoplatonists, who celebrate the emotional satisfaction to be derived from reflective contemplation of what is ontologically ultimate—sometimes called “the God of the philosophers. — Wayfarer
That can't be right. If he was a materialist, all he would be doing is saying 'the cosmos is God'. Carl Sagan might believe that, but I don't think Spinoza believed it. Besides, that would be attributing to matter, the status of a real substance, where in reality, material objects are only modes or aspects of the infinite being of God. — Wayfarer
. So thought and extension (mind and matter) cannot be, for Spinoza, substances at all. — John
If you want to understand Spinoza, you have to read Spinoza, and try to do so without refracting him through the lens of other philosophers; whether it be Kant, Fries, Schopenhauer, Hegel or anyone else. — John
. I believe Spinoza sees no inherent difference between the 'lower' forms of love, motivated by sensory experiences, and the 'higher' forms of love motivated by intellectual contemplation. — John
In what order should these be?
---->apprehension of God ---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->love
or
---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->apprehension of God ---->love
or something else? — Bitter Crank
But his philosophy is, like all philosophy, a corrective. It is a cure for the condition of ignorance that the unwise have as a consequence of them not understanding the nature of reality. How could it not be? — Wayfarer
The irony is that Spinoza is the archetypal modern thinker; his greatest concern is to release our thinking from the oppressions and superstitions of traditional theology — John
Agustino seems to argue that love is some sort of primary instinct, such that we are naturally inclined to love, then good and virtue follows from this love. — Metaphysician Undercover
My argument is that the mother's love of her baby follows from an apprehension of good. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm inclined to agree with Agostino on that point. Love in the sense of a general compassion (rather than the cosy domesticated variety) is, if you like, an attribute of the ground of being, therefore not derived, not contingent on something else. — Wayfarer
....marked and dusty lens of your preoccupations — John
[Einstein] would have no truck with anything "spooky" or supernatural. "God does not play dice ". — John
So, you think the ground of being is personal? — John
but that's ad hominem (again). — Wayfarer
Unfortunately for Einstein, he was proved decisively wrong in this matter, as 'god' does indeed 'play dice', and 'spooky action at a distance' has also been shown to be the case, mainly as a result of John Bell's experiments inspired by the EPR paradox, by which Einstein had set out to disprove the possibility. Both of these findings, incidentally, also undermine determinism also. — Wayfarer
So I can't see how that can ever be anything other than a form of utilitarian ethics, the 'greatest good for the greatest number' or human flourshing. Humans, being a natural creature like any other creature can only seek a natural end - there is no highest good, the knowledge of which is inherently salvific. — Wayfarer
Otherwise, why not simply dispose of Spinoza's 'God or nature' and simply call it 'Nature'? Why then would Spinoza's philosophy not simply identical with science, in which case it could be done away with altogether and we could just stick to science.
In any case, we don't know enough about nature to know what is 'super' to it. A lot of what we now think is 'natural' would once have been described as 'supernatural'. The concept and boundaries of 'nature' are constantly shifting and changing. — Wayfarer
In any case, we don't know enough about nature to know what is 'super' to it. — Wayfarer
I think there's a difference between 'personal' and 'a person'. The word 'person' is after all derived from 'persona' meaning mask, and is roughly equivalent to ego' or 'self'. I think the ground of being is not a person or a self in that sense, but is also not an insentient thing or mere physical energy. I think, whatever it is, it has been perceived as a living mind or spirit in countless different cultural milieux, and I don't think they're all mistaken in that regard.
So - yes. — Wayfarer
It's funny that you seem to think science gives us information relevant to our understanding of reality or metaphysics when you believe it supports your world view, but not when you don't believe it does. — John
"That whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent..." — John
I am not sure the notion of a God that is not personal really counts as a coherent notion of God at all — John
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
I think the very idea that anything could be 'super" to nature is incoherent, because nature is defined as "the whole of what is", whatever that whole might turn out to be or to include. — John
Not at all true. I am a scientific realist but a transcendental idealist. — Wayfarer
then it doesn't allow for some ultimate, absolute or unconditioned good. — Wayfarer
If people really observed that, this forum would have practically no content. — Wayfarer
Whatever your belief in God is, it has to guide your actions, such that you relate to 'the whole of reality' and not some corner of it. That is the meaning of 'spiritual liberation', and I think quite possibly what Spinoza means by his 'intellectual love of God'. — Wayfarer
Science either informs us about reality or it doesn't. — John
It seems contradictory to say that there could be an "ultimate, absolute or unconditioned good" which means a good independent of human judgement, and yet to claim that there can be no reality independent of human judgement (i.e. a transcendental reality). — John
can't see how an impersonal notion of God can serve as a guide to action any more than the notion of nature could. — John
What translation are you using? Edwin Curley's reads joy. Which is exactly why I avoided the word pleasure and used joy instead. While I don't know the Latin used, I highly suspect that "pleasure" is the most accurate translation there. Here's why:" Love is nothing else butpleasurejoy accompanied by the idea of an external cause." Spinoza. — John
I'm referring to how certain finite states are self-defined rather than others, a way of talking about how God (totality) is expressed by some actual states (those that exist) but not other ones (those which do not exist). — TheWillowOfDarkness
But the modern scientific method deliberately excludes certain factors from its reckonings, and then what has been excluded has been forgotten. — Wayfarer
You might say, the 'absolute' can manifest as a person, but it's not itself a person. — Wayfarer
So one can be an empirical realist about scientific phenomena, without saying that these reveal any absolute truth - so knowledge, as in scientia, is in some fundamental way limited — Wayfarer
You can't ultimately distinguish seer and seen, as what we see is intrinsically dependent on our cognitive abilities (per Kant). — Wayfarer
Scientific realism, as methodology, is one thing - but when it becomes instead a philosophy, it errs, because it forgets that 'the observer' is still part of the picture in the last analysis. Nothing is really 'mind-independent' in the sense of existing apart from perception, but that doesn't mean 'your perception' or 'my perception', but the whole human frame of reference. — Wayfarer
Ok. For me, the utility of this is pointless, you are better off using your time elsewhere. But hey, each to themselves. — TimeLine
A screamer is a screamer. A person who wants to deceive themselves and others will; look at holocaust deniers. There is no point to it, basically, and if you choose the intellectual realm, set aside the emotions and communicate with those that will actually hear you.
No matter what you say, if people refuse to listen or read what you are actually writing or saying because of their personal views and vendettas, they will not hear or see a word that you write. — TimeLine
That is not the way that I see it; I feel the story ameliorates the importance of the subjectivity of the individual, that the intentions within matter more than the practice of offerings or giving. "For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy - full of greed and self-indulgence!" Very similar to the Ring of Gyges parable. The result between the brothers proves this. — TimeLine
It's certainly more tedious to intellectually engage with the emotional, but it's definitely possible; I've done it many times (sure, it's not always worthwhile or successful). The answer to persuading a screamer is either to undermine their emotion or wield a more persuasive argument. — VagabondSpectre
So the ring of invisibility the insignificance that Cain felt when god favored only Abel? That's what caused him to feel jealousy. — VagabondSpectre
Blood is the currency of forgiveness. Which brings me back to my original point: why does god need blood to forgive in the first place? Is it some source of power? Magic? Is god Gargamel? — VagabondSpectre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.